RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03442
            INDEX CODE: 137.01

       (DECEASED)      COUNSEL:  Captain Anthony Moscato

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s records be corrected so that she may receive  a
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant’s counsel  states  that  the  deceased  member  did  not
receive notice of the 1992 open enrollment because the  Air  Force
sent  the  notice  to  the  wrong  address.   The  evidence   also
establishes his intent to enroll in the SBP.  The deceased  member
had only one opportunity to enroll in the SBP  from  the  time  he
married the applicant until the time of his death.  It was the Air
Force that prevented him  from  enrolling  during  the  1992  open
enrollment.  The evidence also establishes the  deceased  member’s
efforts to provide the applicant with all  the  benefits  she  was
entitled to as the spouse of a retired service member.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to his retirement, effective 1 Jul 68, the  member  declined
participation in the Retired Serviceman’s Family  Protection  Plan
(RSFPP).

The deceased member and applicant married on 12 May 88.

During the initial enrollment period, the deceased member returned
an SBP election form declining coverage and wrote on  the  top  of
the election: “This Plan! Is Terrible.”  There is no  evidence  he
returned an election form during  the  1981-1982  open  enrollment
period.  He died on 8 Apr 97.

Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets  and  newsletters
were mailed to the address the decedent provided  to  the  finance
center during the 1981-1982 and 1992-1993 open enrollment periods.
 Neither  of  the  information  packets  were  returned  as  “non-
deliverable.”  Finance center records indicate the foreign mailing
address used in the 1992-1993 enrollment was on file as  early  as
Jun 91.

The RSFPP required members to make their  RSFPP  elections  before
completing  18  years  of   service.    Spouse   notification   or
concurrence was not required.  The RSFPP has several  unattractive
features and less than 15 percent of members  retired  during  its
existence enrolled.

Public Law (PL)  92-425,  which  established  SBP  on  21 Sep  72,
authorized an 18-month enrollment period for  retired  members  to
elect  SBP  coverage.   PLs  97-35  and  101-189  authorized   two
additional open enrollment periods:   1 Oct  81 -  30 Sep  82  and
1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93, respectively.  During  all  open  enrollment
periods, members were advised by direct mail of their  eligibility
to make an election.  The  enrollment  packets,  as  well  as  the
Afterburner, USAF News for  Retired  Personnel,  published  during
those timeframes,  were  sent  by  direct  mail  to  the  member’s
correspondence  address  maintained  by  the  finance  center  and
contained points of contact for members to use to gain  additional
information.

RSFPP coverage may not be extended to beneficiaries acquired after
retirement.  SBP coverage and premiums are suspended when a spouse
loses their eligibility by death or divorce.   Subsequent  spouses
become eligible  beneficiaries  after  one  year  of  marriage  by
operation of the law.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retiree  Services  Branch,  AFPC/DPPTR,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that it is the  member’s  responsibility
to ensure the finance  center  has  accurate  addresses  on  file.
There is no evidence the decedent attempted to obtain  information
about enrolling either of his wives in the SBP.  The fact that  he
declined to participate in the RSFPP, or either of the  three  SBP
open enrollment opportunities, coupled with the fact that he never
paid any premiums, are indicative of his intent to reject survivor
coverage.  SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that  an
individual must  elect  to  participate  and  pay  the  associated
premiums in order to have coverage.  It would  be  inequitable  to
those  members  who  chose  to  participate  when   eligible   and
subsequently received reduced retired pay,  and  to  other  widows
whose sponsors chose not to participate, to provide entitlement to
this widow on the basis of the evidence presented.   There  is  no
evidence of an Air Force error or injustice in this case, nor  any
basis to approve this request;  therefore,  DPPTR  recommends  the
relief be denied.

A complete copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
counsel/applicant on 19 Jul 99 for review  and  response.   As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.     The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by
existing law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and   applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that her late  husband’s  records
should be corrected so that she may receive an SBP  annuity.   Her
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these
assertions, in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.   We  note  that
the member had three open  enrollment  opportunities  to  make  an
election.  We therefore agree with the recommendation of  the  Air
Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden  that
she has suffered either an error or an injustice.   Therefore,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance, with  or  without  counsel,
will  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission
of newly discovered relevant evidence  not  considered  with  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application  in
Executive Session on 20 April 2000, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 29 Jan 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jul 99.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair